Wether 9/11 was pre-planned or not it was a pre-cursor to the "war on terror" and it defined an enemy as "Al-Qaeda" that were armed to fight the russians, who then fought the west in afghanistan, who have recently been affilliated with "freedom fighters" in syria.. and are now sparking a new war in africa.

On a semi related sidenote I often wonder if the word "conflict" has replaced the word "War" with nobody noticing.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

(31-01-2013 02:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: They recycled the rubble and it still requires it all to have been recycled before anyone ever got there to get any of it. It took months to clear that rubble and they are suggesting that it was recycled at an impossible rate before anyone got any of it. Despite the fact that there is that piece shaped like a cross they want to put in the museum. Isn't that some of the steel one could test?

You should listen to what these people have to say first, then you should try and challenge them. As you are now I don't think you're really considering what they have to say. These are engineers, architects, and physicians, please at least give them the benefit of the doubt instead of just giving them the doubt.

(31-01-2013 02:14 PM)bemore Wrote: Wether 9/11 was pre-planned or not it was a pre-cursor to the "war on terror" and it defined an enemy as "Al-Qaeda" that were armed to fight the russians, who then fought the west in afghanistan, who have recently been affilliated with "freedom fighters" in syria.. and are now sparking a new war in africa.

On a semi related sidenote I often wonder if the word "conflict" has replaced the word "War" with nobody noticing.

The US military's definition of War vs. conflict is different. Which is why some events are called war and others are conflicts. Not to fool anyone, it's just semantics.

And it is certainly true that the events of 9/11 caused a series of chain-reaction responses whose repercussions are still being felt. But are you proposing that these responses were intended by someone? Perhaps it is worth noting that the beneficiaries so far appear to be muslim extremists in the case of the Arab spring.

I'm listening to it as I type these responses. The fodder they are proposing is nothing new, and has been refuted by other experts. Why pick one group to believe over another? And why pick the conspiracy group when they are the one asking you to connect their anecdotal evidence with a conspiracy theory that has precisely 0 evidence for its plausibility?

It reminds me of the anti-vaccine movement where the proponents of the anti-vaccine movement denounce physicians while clinging to the fringe physicians that support their same anti-vaccine views.

You know what makes a shitty documentary that lends itself no credibility as it starts to sound like the rantings and ravings of a preacher on his stump? Repeating the same things over and over again. Especially by just having different people say them and splicing them together as if since multiple people say it, then it must be true.

And yet another documentary that provides no attempt at a dialogue by allowing experts who disagree with their experts to chime in.

(31-01-2013 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'm listening to it as I type these responses. The fodder they are proposing is nothing new, and has been refuted by other experts. Why pick one group to believe over another? And why pick the conspiracy group when they are the one asking you to connect their anecdotal evidence with a conspiracy theory that has precisely 0 evidence for its plausibility?

It reminds me of the anti-vaccine movement where the proponents of the anti-vaccine movement denounce physicians while clinging to the fringe physicians that support their same anti-vaccine views.

You seem very quick to discount their proposals, it seems to me like they present plenty of evidence to suggest demolition. Although I would love to see those you claim refute this evidence.

They don't present any of the evidence contrary to their opinion to refute it. It's like having a conversation about the divinity of Jesus without starting off with the necessary position of "Was Jesus even real?"